The Humanism Dimension
It has been argued wit,h some conviction that the dominant aim of higher education-as determined by an examination of how this craft is practicedis to train students to perform effectively. What they should perform and why is a matter for each individual to decide for himself. Thus each young adult is left to define or to discover on his own, and with little or no encouragement from his teachers, the purpose and meaning of the entire educational enterprise. Ohjective analysis is so ingrained as the sine qua non of scholarly methodology that convictions and feelings which could guide students in the quest for purpose and meaning rarely mingle with traditional academic considerations in the classroom. Despite this, the great need today is for individuals in all fields prepared and willing to make decisions on ethical grounds. And the astute contemporary student, sensing this, seeks training not only in how to perform and how to understand but in how to rationally refine and direct his values and beliefs so they become an integrated part of his expression and action as an educated man. The obvious implications here are that the aims of higher education must be expanded to include this dimension of the learning process and that teachers must find methods for cultivating the open discussion of relevant value issues. Noreover, there is a t least one other important reason for developing an educational methodology for reaching and fortifying the basic value patterns of students. This has to do with the psychological health of the citizen in a postindustrial society. As more specialized skills are required to advance our professional, technological, and economic enterprises, and as the specialist controls smaller and smaller segments of larger and larger systems, the individual is likely to experience a despondency of spirit-a kind of futility born of inferred impotency and nourished on daily doses of expansion and progress. The viability of our civilization depends on the degree to which our people can remain creative and optimistic in the face of this kind of psychological character erosion. If every activity were as exciting, as successful, and as worldshaking as the recent voyage of Apollo 11, there probably would be little need to fortify the indivdual against such depression. As it is, not many individuals can hope to contribute to an enterprise as stimulating as sending the first men to the moon. Yet the assignments of a great percentage of college graduates will require just as concerted, just as precise, just as inspired an effort and just as much belief in thc competence and goodness of man. There is good reason to think that this belief can and must he strengthened and intensified during the higher education process.
Ieditorially
I
speaking
The chemistry teacher could have a more important responsibility in developing this added dimension in higher education than he might a t first anticipate. Beyond question many of the great moral issues that confront us are founded in science-weapons, the space effort, organ transplants, control of technology and population. That scientists may not have made the decisions to use products of science in the disputed situations does not relieve science teachers of the obligation to deal openly but maturely with these issues in their classes. While it would seem inappropriate a t best to make science classes forums on moral responsibility, nevertheless if a limited portion of each course were used for the forthright examination of feelings, and if a climate were established in which the teacher neither imposes nor conceals his own convictions but tries to demonstrate by his actions and at,titudes the kind of conscious interaction between feelings and knowledge that must be a part of every honest value judgment, then this not only would win the praise and respect of every segment of the university community, but i t would fire the spirit of even the most disaffected student. For those who would argue that seminars involving feelings and beliefs should be conducted by humanists or social scientists only, it might he well to consider what is demanded of a humanities teacher when he works with a class as an interpreter of modern literature or of a social scientist when he serves as an analyst of some of the highly charged issues of our culture. How many mortals possess the necessary blend of stability, restraint, compassion, and insight required to lead high level discussions of such topics? Therefore, to expect the humanists and social scientists to assume the entire responsibility for interachg with students on value issues is simply unrenlistic. The very vital mission of developing methodology within higher education for reaching and fortifying the basic value patterns of students involves a good deal more than holding occasional moral responsibility seminars, though this might constitute a good first step. It involves a t the very least a firm commitment to add a requisite new dimension to the instructional pattern. This dimension is one that scientists have traditionally avoided for, with a few notable exceptions, they have felt it both unwise and unnecessary to articulate their feelings in public. But even as science has advanced over the years so humanism also has developed. Perhaps the time has come when the effectiveness and influence of the teacher of science depends as much on his willingness to deal with relevant value issues as on his ability to communicate the great ideas and principles of science. WTL Volume 46, Number 9, September 1969
/
539
